"Why is it that the people of Afghanistan can vote directly for the
Afghanistan president, unlike Americans, who cannot vote directly for
the American president? . . . If the Electoral College is so
important in America, then shouldn't Afghanistan have an Electoral
College? Shouldn't Iraq have an Electoral College? The answer is that
they don't because it's not relevant. "

-- Anthony Medina, The Seattle Times

“Securing democracy in Iraq is… a massive and difficult undertaking --
it is worth our effort, it is worth our sacrifice, because we know the
stakes…The establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East
will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution. …
[W]e believe that freedom -- the freedom we prize -- is not for us
alone, it is the right and the capacity of all mankind. ”-- George W. Bush’s address to the National Endowment for Democracy, November 11, 2003.

The stated rationale behind the USA’s recent interventions in Iraq and
Afghanistan has been to spread ‘the freedom we prize’, and American
traditions of democracy, to the Middle East and the rest of the world.
Massive amounts of American resources, and even lives, have gone
towards securing a peace in these countries which would allow elections
to take place.

In this context, it is interesting to note exactly what election
systems are being implemented in the two countries. The democracy which
America is exporting is different to that which it is using at home. In
Afghanistan and Iraq, a decision has been taken – with US support – to
implement proportional representation systems. In both instances, as in South
Africa after the end of apartheid, proportional representation has widely been
recognized as the best possible way of healing rifts between
communities and bringing conflicting groups to co-operate with one
another.

Bush's speech to the National Endowment for Democracy suggested that
Americans should be ready to intervene around the world to advance the
cause of democracy. Implicit in this is a belief that tradition and
habit should not limit a country's political infrastructure, and that
fair democracy should be within the reach of everybody. Surely this
principle applies just as much within the United States itself. At a
time when the country is politically and culturally divided, proportional representation systems could help to bring disparate groups together,
and give everyone a chance for fair representation.

Iraq

Elections for Iraq's 275 seat assembly, held on January 30, 2005, used
a national closed party list form of proportional representation. A New
York Times graphic explains how the system functioned. Voters
across the country chose from among rival lists of candidates, with the
lists typically backed by political parties. Candidates were
elected at a countrywide level, rather than from districts, since it
was hoped that this would encourage the growth of national political
parties, and multi-ethnic coalitions. By contrast, any system
employing single-member districts, or even regional multi-member ones,
tends to foster regional factions and tribalism. Speaking about
the electoral system, the U. N. electoral assistance director,
Carina Perelli, said that a significant benefit would be the advantage
which it gives to smaller parties, ultimately resulting in a more
inclusive elected body. A country-wide election system would also
have security advantages since it would guard against candidate
intimidation. Perelli suggested that "proportional representation
at a national level—removing the politics from just the local level
where people can be easily identified and taken down—is an extra layer
of security for the candidates".

To ensure a certain level of female assembly members, Iraqi election
law mandates that every third candidate on each list must be a
woman. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq has no separate
presidential election. The Iraqi president is not elected
directly by the people. Rather, the members of the assembly
choose a president and two deputies on the basis of a single list by
two-thirds vote. This presidential council will then nominate a
Council of Ministers.

Afghanistan

Elections for the Afghan lower house, the Wolesi Jirga, are
scheduled to take place April 2005 using multi-member at-large
districts where representative are elected under a one-vote form of
limited voting (also known as single non-transferable vote). The entire
country will be divided into districts corresponding to existing
provinces. The number of seats allocated to a province will be
determined by its population, although each will be guaranteed a
minimum of two seats. However many seats there are to be filled, each
voter will have only one vote. This ensures that a group making up 51%
of the population cannot swamp 100% of the seats, and that minority
groups and parties will have a chance to win their fair share of
representation.

The Afghan constitution sets aside a quota of seats in the Wolesi Jirga
to be allocated to women, amounting in total to roughly one quarter of
the entire assembly. Within each voting district, the highest female
vote-getters will be awarded a predetermined number of seats,
regardless of their position in the overall vote totals. In principle,
the number of female designated seats is equivalent to 2 per province.
However, in provinces with only two representatives, only one will be
mandated female, the difference being made up in other more populous
regions.

There are numerous logistical obstacles in the way of successful Afghan
elections. The country's infrastructure as a whole is in very poor
condition, making it difficult to get polling equipment to outlying
areas. This is compounded by the fighting which still persists in
certain regions. In addition, literacy levels in Afghanistan are low;
as many as 80% of Afghan women are illiterate.

Early plans were for a list system of proportional representation to be used.
Unfortunately, this was later abandoned, and instead the country
adopted limited voting. This goes some way towards giving all
groups a hope of fair representation while at the same time being
simple for voters to understand. However, because this is a system
where the drawing of district boundaries still affects different
candidates' chances of representation, the system creates problems as
well as solving them. Afghan law stipulates that electoral boundaries
must be determined 120 days before an election, and this process is
likely to cause friction over the coming months. In a recent panel
discussion convened in New York by the Asia society, experts on Central
Asian affairs suggested that interested groups would place increasing
pressure on election authorities to establish new provinces, new
boundaries, and more parliamentary seats.

Elections with local districts also have implications for candidate
intimidation. Robert Templer, the Asia Program Director of the
International Crisis Group, thinks that parliamentary elections will
bring difficulties which were not a factor in the recent presidential
elections, since " real local authority will be at stake at this
election in a way that it wasn't in the presidential election. So
local forces, local militias are going to be competing more thoroughly
to influence the outcome of the parliamentary and council votes. "

In Detroit, there have been three mayors in the past two years and the current one has come under scrutiny. Perhaps a system like instant runoff voting will help bring political stability to motor city.